On Aug 25 2013, Sam Sanders wrote:
> Do people in applications really throw out classical (whatever order)
> logic and embrace paraconsistent logic as "the true way"? Or do they just
> think/work classically and somehow manage to contain the inconsistent
> information, i.e. prevent it from doing damage?
>> I have seen examples of the latter, but not the former in practice. Chow
> similarly asked for a clear example (related to the ongoing saga
> mentioned), I believe.
This is absolutely crucial. There is a huge mistake being made by the
paraconsistency insurgency: the mistake of thinking that an agent who
treads carefully on encountering a contradiction and therefore does not -
pro tem - use the ex falso, is ``using a paraconsistent logic''. One
absolutely does not need a new, kinky logic. What we have is an engineering
problem not a logical problem, and it needs to be solved by engineers not
logicians.
I think that the error of which this is a cute example is actually
quite widespread, and we need to combat it.
tf